HOUSING LEGISLATION OF 1966

489

enator JAVITS. He has been enormously helped by the law already. has one of the best programs in the country for training teachers, training supplementary assistants, for getting parents to help, for king up the classes of these children, disadvantaged children into s which are giving them sort of high-powered instruction, et ra. Dr. Briggs is a very remarkable man!

f all of the things he testified to, this stark fact seemed to me to omething that all of us ought to carry around like a sign in front s, that is just what is happening.

ow, Mr. Chairman, these are the conditions which threaten the c livability of more than 70 percent of the American people who y live in the urban areas. I talk in terms of the threat to the re urban existence, for the problem of slum areas is like a chain tion. As the slums worsen, crime increases, violence erupts, the is which are considered "safe" diminish until finally the exodus n the city becomes widespread.

his, of course, leaves the city to those who could not afford to move It is clear that the cities and State governments are no longer able of handling these enormous problems within their available urces. The springs of revenues for the localities have been drying at an increasing rate. A generation ago, municipalities were coling more taxes than the National and State governments. In 1932, y took 52 percent of the total tax take. Local figures have dropped 962 to a mere 7.3 percent and as recently as 1963, only $400 million Hirect Federal aid went to the city for housing and community elopment compared to some $7.7 billion spent by the Department griculture in its aid programs.

nd yet, notwithstanding the fact that the impact is so great, and changeover has had to be so immediate, I don't feel that the FedGovernment up to now has been awakened to its full responsibility. ow I think we are beginning to wake up to it, and I see in the Dement of Housing and Urban Development a spokesman for the As of the urban centers.

ow I think, with all of the crying which has been done about our eral programs, urban renewal, public housing, and community lities have been of great value. Yet each of these has been coned with a piece of the urban problem, not with the whole problem. 1 it is for that reason that the demonstration cities bill which ld authorize Federal grants to local communities for the rebuildor restoring of entire sections and neighborhood of slum and hted areas is so important.

he bill provides for a coordinated program of physical and social wal with principal responsibility for formulating plans placed a local government. This comprehensive plan should rectify what been a fundamental failing of our existing urban development ef5. Many of the urban renewal projects have fathered tasteless, le edifices with no relation to the social factors-to the needs and res of the people who will inhabit them. The emphasis in the onstration cities proposal is on the total welfare of the person and the desire to improve the physical environment in which he By authorizing the rebuilding or restoring of entire sections. neighbhorhoods of slum and blighted areas, the bill proposes to

replace blight with attractive and economical housing, social se and community facilities. The bill recognizes that in many ca habilitation may be preferable to clearance but in many cases bo be used as the locality wishes.

I wish to emphasize that local citizens should have an ever important role in such demonstration projects from the early pla stages to the actual construction work. Local municipal lead has often been unimaginative and unresponsive to the great pro of the cities. I believe this attitude is changing all over the co Last week my colleague Senator Kennedy and I hosted a conf in Washington attended by over 350 local government officials our State. I was besieged with questions about the demonst cities proposal. Officials from the larger cities of Buffalo, Syr and Rochester, as well as the smaller cities and even the town sought my help in enlisting their area in the new program. sure that my colleagues are aware of the significance such a pro would play within New York City, as Mayor Lindsay has al testified to the strong feeling of his administration in support o proposal.

But, Mr. Chairman, I think certain changes are necessary.

First, I would like to address myself to what I believe are the most serious deficiencies in the pending proposal: the amount of f to be made available and the selection process. The Presiden called for $2.3 billion to be made available over a 5-year period b ning in fiscal 1968. In fiscal 1967, a total of $17 million is to be a able for planning and demonstration projects.

These sums will certainly limit the effectiveness of the program cause they will limit the number of communities which will be to receive aid and restrict the actual funds available to those which are allowed to participate. I hope that the legislation be amended to allow the Department concerned to sign contracts local governments for the entire $2.3 billion during fiscal 1967 though actual funds would not be forthcoming until later. would allow communities with aggressive leadership to move al immediately with their plans, while the budgetary impact would be spread over the 6-year period envisaged by the President.

I would like to point out, wherever we have used prefinancing. as in roads, it has been extremely advantageous to let people go al who could go ahead without inhibiting them with the appropriat problem. So that is point 1.

The administration has talked in terms of aiding some 60 to 70 ci but this seems improbable in view of current funding plans. Se tary Weaver has mentioned that a typical demonstration projec a large city would contain about 100,000 people and that a large would stand to receive approximately $440 million in Federal ai 20 percent of the entire $2.3 billion-over the 5- or 6-year perio the project. If this estimate is accurate, then no more than tw three large cities could expect assistance.

In view of the limited funding of this program, the criteria eligibility takes on a role of major importance.

So the first point I have, Mr. Chairman, is all we are going to c mit is $2.3 billion, and it is very inadequate, and I would certa plead for more, but if that is going to be our limit, according to

HOUSING LEGISLATION OF 1966

491

get, let's at least commit it in the sense that contracts can be made respect to it, even though appropriations may occur during the le 6-year interim.

he second point is eligibility. The criteria for eligibility becomes important, and, in my judgment, a greater degree of specificity eded in delineating the rather vague criteria in the bill. So in next few days, I will offer the following amendments:

Grant express authority for more than one demonstration project ny one city. Although I do not interpret the bill as written as icting the program to one per city, I wish to make the applicabillear. Each of the boroughs of New York City has sections or hborhoods needing immediate attention and I do not think that of these large areas-larger in themselves than most of the other rican cities should be penalized simply because they are part of arger municipality of New York City.

Channel the available funds to the most critical areas. I recend a more definitive section setting out the eligibility, in parar to require: (a) the Secretary to determine that a neighborhood bject to great economic and social pressures and also to require rkable program be submitted by the local community (a similar dment has been introduced in the House by Mr. Reuss, of Wisin); (b) that any demonstration area will contain sufficient housof low and moderate cost, utilizing to the fullest extent possible ing eligible for rent supplement benefits.

d, Mr. Chairman, I tend to strongly support the rent supple- program and to fight for it, I think it comes up tomorrow or sday, and I hope very much the Senate will put it in the bill, ithstanding that it was eliminated by the Appropriations mittee.

O Maximum opportunities for eligibility for employing residents ach areas who are unemployed or underemployed; (d) fullest zation possible or private initiative and enterprise; (e) that housbe made available in such a way so as to allow economic integrawithin the demonstration area, which I think is critically

rtant.

e of the things that is tremendously backward is the participaof the business community of major cities in meeting the crisis in cities, and if there is one thing I shall apply myself to, it is that. nk our law should be written so as to place a premium on fitting kind of cooperation, which is made available by the private r so that the Federal Government will be able to take its part e that kind of an opening is afforded where a little money on the of the Federal Government, added to a lot of money on the part e business community, can do a much bigger job than the FedGovernment can do alone.

at goes for the demonstration city project especially, because is the one thing we ought to demonstrate beyond everything else. big city receives or makes jobs, as for example in Pittsburgh, and oston, and in Philadelphia, were done with the business comty carrying the major responsibility. And that is what we d encourage in this demonstration cities program.

To encourage community and neighborhood self-help efforts for ilitation of blighted areas. I recommend the authorization of

3

Federal grants to local government bodies of up to one-h of establishing local neighborhood conservation prog program would be composed of local citizens organized and repair their own neighborhood. Federal technical ass the loan of personnel and heavy equipment would be avail program would also have the important responsibility fo and training a body of community development specialis urban renewal and rehabilitation work. Selected personn sent by local governments to the Department of Housing Development for on-the-job training.

4. Since the urban renewal program underlies the de city program, and there is presently a backlog of appl volving more than $800 million for capital grant commitm ommend an increace of $250 million a year in their au This would provide an authorization of $1 billion for 1967, 1968, and 1969.

5. Increase the demonstration planning funds. I recon the proposed $17 million authorized by the bill for fisca be supplemented with funds from the urban renewal pro authorization, not exceeding 1 percent of that fund in an If my amendment outlined above is adopted, this woul million for fiscal year 1967 to the $17 million sought by istration for planning.

In addition I will introduce an amendment to modify th of "housing owner" eligible for rent supplement payments 1965 Housing Act to add those who are presently eligible tain limited profit housing programs for middle- and citizens. In New York, under the well-known Mitchellgram, a number of significant middle-income and low-in ing projects have been constructed. I believe this type o initiative should be eligible for rent supplement assistan tion to the 221D (3) nonprofit organizations that are present

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I am of the view that the den cities program may well be the method of the future in our slums and blighted areas. It is apparent that such hensive and concentrated force, well directed, with the prope should have the highest priority.

I hope that Congress will recognize the significance of th and not let this program slide into the maelstrom of po troversy and, Mr. Chairman, may I say that I identify m with those who say that we must meet this responsibility standing the war in Vietnam, and that we have the capabi the bill and if necessary, to restrain inflation, that we m other projects like public works, which can be deferred, and for a modest tax increase, if need be, in order not to disa country in dealing with its crisis problems in the cities. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SPARK MAN. Thank you very much, Senator Ja a very fine statement.

Senator JAVITS. Thank you.

Senator SPARKMAN. Mr. Charles M. Nes, Jr., first vice pr American Institute of Architects, accompanied by Mi

Scheick and Mr. Philip Hutchinson. We are glad to have you gentle

ment with us.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES M. NES, JR., FIRST VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM H. SCHEICK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AND PHILIP A. HUTCHINSON, JR., DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

Mr. NES. Mr. Chairman, my name is Charles M. Nes, Jr. I am a practicing architect and first vice president of the American Institute of Architects (AIA). With me are William H. Scheick, executive director of the AIA, and Philip A. Hutchinson, Jr., the institute's director of governmental affairs.

Today it is my privilege to appear before you as a representative of the American Institute of Architects. Our organization is a professional society which represents more than 22,000 licensed architects. We, as AIA members, are intimately involved in metropolitan planning, urban renewal, and, indeed, in nearly every building project of any magnitude. Although a small profession in number, we have an important role in shaping America's cities.

We support the Demonstration Cities Act of 1966 (S. 2842), the Urban Development Act (S. 2977), the Housing and Urban Development Amendments of 1966 (S. 2978), and legislation to encourage and assist in the preservation and maintenance of historic structures (S. 3097). However, we have several recommendations which we hope will be helpful to this subcommittee.

I. DEMONSTRATION CITIES ACT OF 1966

We are extremely enthusiastic about provisions in S. 2842 providing for "comprehensive city demonstration programs." For the first time to our knowledge, language has been written into a bill that recognizes the importance of quality of design and construction.

Section 4(c) (2) requires the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to give maximum consideration, in determining whether a comprehensive city demonstration program is eligible for assistance, to whether "the program will enhance neighborhoods by applying a high standard of design and will, as appropriate, maintain distinctive natural, historical, and cultural characteristics."

A high standard of design for a city demonstration program is a desirable goal and it is something that can be achieved without added expenditures. If taken into consideration when planning a project, the redeveloped neighborhood will become a better place to live. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, a high standard of design should be a goal for all federally assisted building programs.

We are certainly pleased that this bill recognizes the value of preserving the historical and cultural characteristics of urban neighborhoods. Later on in my statement I comment on the need for historic preservation. Suffice at this point to quote from a report of a Special Committee on Historic Preservation entitled "With Heritage So Rich" which states:

Not since the War of 1812 has the United States suffered any serious loss of its buildings through foreign military action. Yet in the 2d half of the 20th